Federal Habeas Corpus

1,464 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 119 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Smith v. State OF Md.
  362 F.2d 763· 4th Cir.· 1966-06-17 ·cited 6×
  A federal habeas corpus petition was properly denied because the petitioner, a believer in God, could not claim a violation of equal protection or due process based on the exclusion of nonbelievers from the grand jury, especially when the state court had limited the retroactivity
• Collins v. Klinger
  332 F.2d 54· 9th Cir.· 1964-05-12 ·cited 6×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  The court held that the introduction of evidence seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and that state constitutional claims are not cognizable in federal habeas corpus.
• United States v. Bailey
  331 F.2d 218· 7th Cir.· 1964-04-29 ·cited 6×
  The defense of entrapment is not available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for collateral attack when it could have been raised on direct appeal, and thus a hearing was not required.
• United States ex rel. Ronald H. Connelly v. Cormier
  279 F.2d 37· 5th Cir.· 1960-06-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the appellant had not exhausted his state remedies before seeking federal habeas corpus relief.
• Ekberg v. McGEE
  191 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1951-08-31 ·cited 6×
• Davis v. Smyth
  155 F.2d 3· 4th Cir.· 1946-04-08 ·cited 6×
  A federal court will not entertain a habeas corpus petition from a state prisoner claiming a federal constitutional violation until the prisoner has exhausted all available state court remedies, including seeking review in the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Wendall Hall v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-11-21 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted because the state courts relied on independent and adequate state-law procedural grounds, and the petitioner failed to establish cause for the default or demonstrate a miscarriage of justice.
• Christin Bilotti v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  133 F.4th 1320· 11th Cir.· 2025-04-11 ·cited 5×
  Christin Bilotti was convicted of second-degree murder in Florida and sought federal habeas relief, claiming her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve a religion-based Batson challenge to a juror strike and for failing to object to jury instructions on the element
• Hamill v. Wright
  870 F.2d 1032· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-26 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's Section 1983 claims, finding he lacked standing for injunctive relief and that defendants were immune or had no duty to appoint counsel, but modified the dismissal of pendent state law claims to be without prejudice.
• Earvil Watson v. Althea Camp
  848 F.2d 89· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 5×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the denial of one peremptory challenge to each side, when multiple others were available, does not violate the Constitution by casting doubt on the impartiality of the jury.
• Feigley v. Fulcomer
  833 F.2d 29· 3d Cir.· 1987-11-12 ·cited 5×
  A prisoner's escape from custody constitutes a procedural waiver of the right to seek post-conviction relief, and this waiver bars federal habeas corpus review under the 'cause and prejudice' standard.
• Renzi v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  794 F.2d 155· 4th Cir.· 1986-06-25 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the prosecution's misleading conduct in failing to produce a key informant, despite promises, deprived the defendant of due process, entitling him to a writ of habeas corpus.
• Adams v. Evans
  788 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-09 ·cited 5×
  The court held that alleged violations of Title III concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the authorizing district attorney and judge are not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review because they do not implicate the core concerns of the statute.
• Kreck v. Spalding
  721 F.2d 1229· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-13 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the information was constitutionally defective for failing to adequately apprise the defendant of the charges, and that procedural default did not bar federal habeas review.
• Cherry v. Jago
  722 F.2d 1296· 6th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that jury instructions imposing an equal burden of proof on the defendant for self-defense as the state has for proving murder constitutes a due process violation.
• In re Turner
  637 F.3d 1200· 11th Cir.· 2011-04-05 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction
  William T. Turner, a Florida death row inmate convicted in 1985 of two murders, sought permission to file a successive federal habeas petition asserting that he is mentally retarded and therefore ineligible for execution under Atkins v. Virginia. The Eleventh Circuit held that al
• Zack v. Crosby
  607 F. Supp. 2d 1291· N.D. Fla.· 2008-11-17 ·cited 4×
  A new constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court, even if retroactively applicable, only revives claims based on that specific right and does not revive previously time-barred claims.
• Hill v. A.L. Lockhart
  992 F.2d 801· 8th Cir.· 1993-05-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that an attorney appointed under 21 U.S.C. § 848(q) is not entitled to compensation for state clemency proceedings if the request is not part of a non-frivolous federal habeas corpus proceeding or if state law provides compensation for such services.
• J.W. Williams v. Collins
  989 F.2d 841· 5th Cir.· 1993-05-04 ·cited 4×
  A defendant must make a factual showing sufficient to give the trial court reasonable ground to doubt his sanity at the time of the offense to be entitled to a court-appointed psychiatrist under Ake v. Oklahoma.
• Hawkins v. Risley
  984 F.2d 321· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-25 ·cited 4×
  A prior federal habeas corpus decision can have preclusive effect in a subsequent 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.
• Jones v. A.L. Lockhart
  977 F.2d 444· 8th Cir.· 1992-10-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on incorrect parole eligibility advice is not so novel as to overcome a procedural bar, as the underlying legal principles were available.
• Jeffers v. Lewis
  974 F.2d 1075· 9th Cir.· 1992-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Arizona Supreme Court erred by affirming a death sentence without adequately considering mitigating evidence or conducting a proper reweighing of factors after invalidating one aggravating circumstance.
• Flowers v. Ill. Dep't of Corr.
  962 F.2d 703· 7th Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the jury instructions violated due process and were not harmless error, entitling the petitioner to habeas relief, but that the double jeopardy claim failed due to jury confusion.
• Harmon v. Ryan
  959 F.2d 1457· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 4×
  A state prisoner's failure to seek direct review in the state's highest court is excused if prior state court rulings created confusion or uncertainty about the necessity of such review, thus not barring federal habeas relief.
• Dana v. Dep't OF Corr.
  958 F.2d 237· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-04 ·cited 4×
  The admission of a child victim's out-of-court statements through adult witnesses did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were either within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or possessed particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.
• Wealot v. Armontrout
  948 F.2d 497· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the limitation of cross-examination designed to show a witness's motive for fabrication violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation, and this violation was not harmless error.
• Gonzalez v. Sullivan
  934 F.2d 419· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-28 ·cited 4×
  A state court must be given fair warning of the federal nature of a petitioner's claim before it can be considered exhausted, and procedural defaults in state court bar federal habeas review unless cause and prejudice are shown.
• Goodwin v. State OF Okla.
  923 F.2d 156· 10th Cir.· 1991-01-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a petitioner is excused from exhausting state remedies if the state's highest court has already addressed and resolved the precise legal issue adversely to the petitioner.
• Blaine Eugene Johnson v. Armontrout
  923 F.2d 107· 8th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant's Batson claim is procedurally barred due to failure to raise it on direct appeal, and his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unpersuasive.
• Edgemon v. A.L. Lockhart
  924 F.2d 126· 8th Cir.· 1990-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to provide a sufficient legal reason for not raising his current claims in his second federal habeas petition, thus barring their consideration.
• Hawkins v. Higgins
  898 F.2d 1365· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that state remedies were futile and therefore exhausted, allowing federal habeas corpus review.
• Bagby v. Sowders
  894 F.2d 792· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence did not warrant an instruction on the lesser included offense of sexual abuse in the first degree.
• Duttry v. Scip Superintendent Petsock & The Attorney Gen. of the Commonwealth of Pa.
  878 F.2d 123· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a district court should obtain the state court record before dismissing a habeas petition for failure to exhaust state remedies, especially when the petitioner demonstrates a good faith effort to acquire the records but is unable to do so.
• Franzen v. Brinkman
  877 F.2d 26· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-08 ·cited 4×
  Errors in a state post-conviction review process are not grounds for federal habeas corpus relief.
• Neal v. The State OF Tex.
  870 F.2d 312· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prisoner's constitutional rights to counsel and due process were not violated by the trial court's denial of a continuance or the forced proceeding to trial pro se, and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction.
• Ferenc v. Dugger
  867 F.2d 1301· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 4×
  The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not preclude the State from using evidence previously suppressed on Fourth Amendment grounds in a subsequent, unrelated criminal action if the suppressed evidence was not essential to the defendant's conviction in the prior proceeding.
• Gilmore v. Armontrout
  867 F.2d 1179· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-21 ·cited 4×
• Gunn v. Lanson Newsome
  851 F.2d 1294· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-08 ·cited 4×
• Aiken v. Spalding
  841 F.2d 881· 9th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the habeas petition must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies, as new evidence was presented that had not been considered by state courts.
• Pinson v. Morris
  830 F.2d 896· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 4×·via Federal Habeas Corpus Relief
  The court held that the panel opinion's reasoning regarding Pinson's knowledge of his appellate rights was incongruous and that the state may have an obligation to explicitly inform indigent defendants of their appellate rights.
• Glass v. Hilton Butler
  820 F.2d 112· 5th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the applicant failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right, thus denying the certificate of probable cause and dismissing the appeal.
• Ruiz v. A.L. Lockhart
  806 F.2d 158· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the convictions were valid, the death sentences were unconstitutional because an aggravating circumstance duplicated an element of the underlying capital crime. The court also held that the ruling in Collins v. Lockhart should apply retroactively.
• Davis v. Blackburn
  803 F.2d 1371· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 4×
  A federal court is not foreclosed from sua sponte applying the principle of Stone v. Powell when the petitioner has had a full and fair hearing on their Fourth Amendment claim in state court.
• Hunt v. M.L. Woodson
  800 F.2d 416· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-11 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority opinion incorrectly reversed the district court's judgment.
• Ashford v. Edwards
  780 F.2d 405· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 4×
  Convicting a defendant of two counts of attempted armed robbery is not a violation of the federal double jeopardy clause when the evidence shows threats and demands made to two separate victims, even if the property sought belonged to a partnership.
• Brownstein v. Dir., Ill. Dep't OF Corr.
  760 F.2d 836· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 4×
  A federal court may deny habeas relief based on a petitioner's "deliberate bypass" of state procedures, even if no procedural default occurred under state law, when the petitioner strategically sought an unentitled benefit.
• United States ex rel. Ronald C. Huckstead v. Greer
  737 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel and that the omission of a jury instruction regarding the state's burden to disprove self-defense did not rise to the level of plain error or prejudice sufficient for federal habeas relief.
• United States ex rel. Gary Paul Karr v. Wolff
  732 F.2d 615· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards v. Arizona retroactively to conduct that occurred before Edwards was decided. The case is remanded for reconsideration under the appropriate pre-Edwards legal standard.
• Austin v. McKASKLE
  724 F.2d 1153· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a federal habeas petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if they did not receive a full and fair evidentiary hearing in state court, especially when facts regarding a potential Brady violation are in dispute.
• Howard v. Wyrick
  720 F.2d 993· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate cause for his procedural default because his 1979 counsel's investigation into his claimed innocence met the constitutional standard for effective assistance.